This revision is directed against the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, “the State Commission) dated 16.12.2014 in appeal No.162/2011 whereby the State Commission partly accepted the appeal of the complainant and modified the order by awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner for damage for his domestic appliances. The appellant being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation has preferred this revision petition. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 204 days. Petitioner, therefore, has prayed for condonation of delay. The petitioner submits that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. He submits that he is a layman. After receiving the order of the State Commission he sent a letter to the Registrar of the National Commission seeking advice how he should proceed to challenge the order of the State Commission. In response to that letter, the Registrar sent an acceptance of the revision petition filed by him. The explanation obviously is not acceptable. Law on the limitation is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, has observed as under: -

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant”.

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:

 “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.

            Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed as under:

 “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.”

In view of the above settled position in law and absence of any cogent explanation for delay in filing of revision petition, we find no reason to condone the delay of 204 in filing of the revision petition. Otherwise also, on perusal of record we do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is also dismissed.